DIOGENES: In Search Of An Honest Politician!

DIOGENES invites you to pull up a chair on this rainy day and read
posts from around the world.
The writing may lean to the right...but that's the way Diogenes wants it!
You may leave your opinion,
but Diogenes rarely changes his! WELCOME!

Thursday, March 21, 2013

University of New Mexico students learn the world won't end if they say NO to Gay activist's demands!

So much of what is taught on today’s college campuses is useless “feel good” drivel. It is very often nothing more than pap designed to “build self-esteem.” Nevertheless, occasionally a genuine lesson will bubble up through the worthless sludge. This is what happened recently at the University of New Mexico (UNM). While the lesson was unintended, it was clear and for a change valuable.
Students learned that they do not have to automatically yield to minority opinion and if they tell demanding Gay activists to get lost the world will not come to an end. Here’s how it unfolded.
A group of “frightened” Gay activists on the campus of the University of New Mexico recently got a big surprise when they demanded that...

Why Socialist Fail

House passes Ryan budget with big spending cuts, transformed Medicare

The House Thursday approved by a party-line vote a Republican spending plan for 2014 that would balance the U.S. budget in 10 years with substantial cuts in spending and a new Medicare plan for Americans younger than 55.
It passed 221-207 and puts the GOP once again solidly on the side of reduced federal funding and more tax cuts. Democrats said it would devastate programs important to the middle class and poor, while providing huge tax benefits to the wealthy.
The GOP budget would cut the top income tax rate from 39.6 percent, through the closing of loopholes and other deductions. It would also repeal the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama's health overhaul legislation. The GOP-led House has now voted to repeal the health care legislation more than 30 times.
Medicare would be transformed. Instead of traditional Medicare, Americans turning 65 in the next decade and beyond would get vouchers they could use to purchase private insurance, or enroll in traditional Medicare. Democrats said the vouchers won't come close to covering the cost of coverage, but Republicans insisted it's the only way to insure the health system for seniors remains viable.
Not a single Democrat voted for the bill, drafted by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI, who championed the plan as Mitt Romney's vice presidential running mate in last year's presidential race.
"Our approval of the House Republican budget today marks a significant milestone as we work to balance the federal budget and get our economy back on track," said Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson. "This is a responsible budget that balances in 10 years, saves Medicare from bankruptcy, repeals Obamacare, and gets our economy moving again so we can create jobs through pro-growth reforms that establish a fairer and simpler tax code."

Federal Government To Enforce 'Obamacare' Regulation In Oklahoma!

OKLAHOMA CITY -- The federal government has informed Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John Doak that it intends to take over swaths of insurance regulation in the state to ensure compliance with the Affordable Care Act – commonly known as “Obamacare.”

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is notifying insurers in Oklahoma that it will handle enforcement of the ACA. In a March 15 letter to Doak, the agency notified the Insurance Department of its responsibility to enforce the ACA in Oklahoma because the state has declined to do so. Should Oklahoma enact“market reform requirements,” according to the letter, the federal government will consider transitioning regulations to the state.

Progressivism: In general, there is no limit to the right of the State

Public and Private Responsibilities.- It is seen in general that there is no limit to the right of the State, the sovereign power, save its ability to do good. Duty, function, is co-extensive with power. The State is a moral person. It may be further said in general that the fundamental principle, the basis of the economic life of modern nations, is individual responsibility. It is designed that each grown person should feel that the welfare of himself and of his family, if he has one, rests upon himself. The State enters where his powers are insufficient, or we may express it better in this way : for the attainment of certain ends he finds it advantageous to co-operate with his fellows through town, city. State, federal government, and the performance of public duties as well as private duties is helpful in the development of the individual and of the race.

"Introduction" was written in 1889, at a time when the progressive movement had not become what it became by the early 1900's. So some of this is not necessarily all that threatening. It requires more reading of Ely to fully understand the mindset. In "Evolution of industrial society", Ely writes the following: (page 402)

Another stage in the development of thought is clearly reached in the writings of the English philosopher, Thomas Hill Green, who breaks away altogether from the conception of liberty as something to be achieved by negative, political action, holding that true liberty means the expression of positive powers of the individual, and that it can be reached only as a result of a long and arduous constructive process. Green tells us in these words what he means by liberty or freedom:

Richard Ely's influence upon early progressive thought probably cannot be under estimated, and it is likely that this is how and where progressives got the ideas that we have heard coming from Obama, the concepts of negative and positive liberty. It was imported from Britain. Keeping in mind that as Obama states it, you're hearing a philosophy that's had a whole century to "mature" and find its way, whereas Ely's writing is early and has not had the time to come to full fruition. Here is what he quotes from Green:

We do not mean merely freedom from restraint or compulsion. We do not mean merely freedom to do as we like irrespectively of what it is that we like. We do not mean a freedom that can be enjoyed by one man, or one set of men, at the cost of a loss of freedom to others. When we speak of freedom as something to be highly prized, we mean a positive power or capacity of doing or enjoying something worth doing or enjoying, and that, too, something that we do or enjoy in common with others. We mean by it a power which each man exercises through the help or security given him by his fellow men, and which he in turn helps to secure for them. When we measure the progress of a society by the growth in freedom, we measure it by the increasing development and exercise on the whole of those powers of contributing to social good with which we believe the members of the society to be endowed; in short, by the greater power on the part of the citizens as a body to make the most and best of themselves."

To sum: Green is talking about the collective. Not the individual.
In the short bit that I have quoted, and in the even larger context of the few pages around it, it is unclear if Ely is quoting Green in agreement. If he is, I might have missed it. But elsewhere, we know that Ely was profoundly impacted by the things he read in European writings and was in agreement with them. Elsewhere in the very same book, "Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society", Ely writes this: (page 62)

For a long time in this country, under the influence of eighteenth century philosophy, we were inclined to regard men as substantially equal, and to suppose that all could live under the same economic and political institutions. It now becomes plain that this is a theory which works disaster, and is, indeed, cruel to those who are in the lower stages, resulting in their exploitation and degradation.

Of all the instances of rejection of the so called "eighteenth century ideas", this might be the most pointed. Above this quote and on page 61, he's talking about individualism and private property. Even before his quoting of Thomas Hill Green in 1889, Ely wrote this, in 86: (after quoting from Adam Smith)

This view, however, does not imply a conflict between the development of the individual and the development of society. Self-development for the sake of others is the aim of social ethics. Self and others, the individual and society, are thus united in one purpose.

This again, could be read ambiguously. Two paragraphs down, we see this:

The older ethical systems may, I think, be called individual. The perfection of the individual, or the worthiness of the individual, to use another expression, was the end proposed. Moral excellence of a single person was considered as something which might exist by itself, and need not bear any relation to one's fellows. Men were treated as units, and not as members of a body. The new tendency of which I speak, however, proceeds from the assumption that society is an organism, and that the individual is a part of a larger whole. Rudolph von Ihering develops this idea in the second volume of his "Zweck im recht." The source of ethics he finds in society: the end of ethics likewise is discovered in society and from society according to this theory is derived the ethical motive power which resides in the human will. Social ethics thus replaces individual ethics.

A few observations about this: Unlike his quoting of Green above, he is quoting in agreement here. He says "The older ethical systems may, I think, be called individual". There again, we see a nod to disagreement with the eighteenth century ideas and a push back against the Founding. "The perfection of the individual" is still something we hear about coming from progressives of today. "Men were treated as units" - This offends me to no end. I am not a "unit". The larger observation here is obvious. Old individualism is replaced by collectivism, even his characterization of individuals as "units", that's wording that gets right toward the core belief of the writer. Ely just can't help himself but look at us as parts of a whole, much like a beehive.
So here we have the answer to our query. Why is there no limit to the right of the state? Because that old eighteenth century philosophy "works disaster". The Founders were wrong. We progressives are right. Social replaces individual, and the state is our savior which will correct all of these ills.

Progressives do not want to discuss their own history. I want to discuss their history.

Immigration Hawks Turn Their Lonely Eyes to Gov. Bobby Jindal

On Tuesday, Kentucky senator Rand Paul delivered a speech in favor of legalizing the status of illegal immigrants and opening up a path to citizenship for them. Immigration hawks were not pleased. "He just pissed away the [presidential] nomination quite honestly," said Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies. "That's what he did today."
Paul had previously supported the idea of immigration reform, but the speech removed any possibility that he might move right and challenge the establishment on the issue. Amnesty opponents were left feeling glum about their prospects for a presidential candidate. "I'm honestly looking for someone I can support in 2016," Krikorian told me over the phone.
According to New York magazine's Jonathan Chait, Paul's speech meant that opponents of comprehensive immigration reform won't have a top-tier presidential candidate in 2016. "All of the major 2016 figures — Paul, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker — support comprehensive reform," wrote Chait. "Whichever candidate eventually emerges to speak for the anti-reform base — and one will; the lure of a mass followership and free time on Fox News is too great to pass up — will probably be a Herman Cain–esque huckster running a protest race rather than a serious candidacy."
But one serious potential presidential candidate was overlooked: Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal.
"He doesn't seem to have talked about it much," Krikorian told me. "I haven't heard him say anything about it other than just talk about his own family experience." Jindal hasn't spoken a lot about the issue, but in his 2010 book, Leadership and Crisis, Jindal criticized those who "think we should open up our borders and grant amnesty to millions of illegals who broke the law when they crossed the border."

This incident recalled an equally embarrassing incident back in 2011 when it bottomed out with Lady M onboard in Ireland)

They don’t call her old lead bottom for nothing – the “Beast” I mean...(the car)

(snip) And you know what else? I’m sure it’s just a coincidence butt it looks like BO’s wearing the same unruly blue tie as he did in Ireland!

Don’t ask me what it all means, I’ve no idea. Maybe it’s a good omen for Palestine; or a bad omen for Israel…or maybe Ireland.

Here’s a short synopsis of Big Guy’s speechifying in Ramallah, so you can decide for yourself:

Palestine deserves a state of their own, Israel hasn’t been very helpful to Palestinians, Ramallah is a place of promise, unlike Gaza which is a place of terror. Which reminded Big Guy to point out once again what a deeply flawed country America was before he arrived on scene to end racism:

“Whenever I meet these young people, whether they’re Israeli or Palestinian, I think of my young daughters,’ he said during a joint press conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

‘Those of us in the United States understand that change takes time, but change is possible. There was a time when my daughters did not have the same opportunities as somebody else’s daughters.”

(snip) Anyway, enough of that. Lady M is making the world safe for our military families on the home front. All I can say is poor Little Bo. I’m going to give him some extra Snausages tonight.

FoxNews.com

Looks like ObamaCare may be rearing its head. In the wake of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, CVS is telling its employees they need to reveal their height, weight, body fat percent and other personal information for health insurance purposes.

The Rhode Island-based company, which employs around 200,000 individuals, is telling workers who use its health insurance they need to have a wellness review done -- or pay up.
CVS says it will pay for the health reviews and the information will go to a third party administrator of CVS's benefits, not CVS itself. According to the company, CVS bosses will not be able to access their employees' health records.
The idea is to incentivize healthy living. CVS says the idea is nothing new.
"The idea of an employee wellness plan is perfectly legal under the ADA. Courts held up these plans," said Joshua Kersey, a Tampa labor attorney. He says with "Obamacare" looming in 2014, practices like this wellness review are likely to become more common, because a lot of employers are expecting to pay more for their workers' health insurance.
"The more money it's going to save the employer, the more incentive the employer has to affect these types of programs," he said.
In CVS's case, workers not comfortable getting the review done will have to pay a $600 annual penalty.
"It is voluntary because you're welcome to get healthcare through someone else," he said.
In a statement, CVS says it's implemented the program to try and keep employees as healthy as possible, and help them manage their costs.

Jerusalem Post Editor: "We Can't Figure Out What He's Doing Here"

Caroline Glick, Senior Contributing Editor of the Jerusalem Post said the Israeli people consider President Obama "a hostile president overall," on "Mornings on the Mall" on WMAL-FM in Washington DC. Appearing with Brian Wilson and myself Wednesday morning, Glick said the Israeli people "can't figure out what he's doing here," when asked about the mood in Jerusalem as the President's plane touched down for the first time in his presidency.